Thread: A sheep in wolf's clothing

http://washtimes.com/op-ed/20051208-092510-2602r.htm

A sheep in wolf's clothing
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By Ian de Silva
December 9, 2005


Judging from President Bush's renewed effort to resuscitate his so-called guest-worker plan, it is clear the president has learned very little about immigration issues since he first pitched his plan back in January 2004.
As an immigrant who is deeply grateful to America, I do not enjoy criticizing American presidents. And, as a naturalized American who is a committed conservative, it pains me to criticize a Republican president. However, as most conservatives would agree, this president's approach to immigration is anything but conservative.
Everyone has heard of the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. In contrast, the president's guest-worker proposal is a sheep in wolf's clothing. His new, ostensibly tough rhetoric about border security seeks to disguise what amounts to a surrender to illegal aliens. The president insists his proposal is not an amnesty, yet that is exactly what it is. The legalizing of people who came here illegally is an amnesty, plain and simple.
It does not matter that illegal aliens may do dirty jobs that Americans supposedly will not (more about this later). What matters is that they came here illegally and therefore their very first act in this country was to break the law. Thus it is morally repugnant that such people should be rewarded by any kind of legal status. And, if I may add, it is also a slap in the face to immigrants like me who waited years for a green card.
It is hypocritical for any conservative to harp about morality and the rule of law, and then turn around and legalize illegal aliens. Nothing erodes confidence in the law than the rewarding of law-breakers. We should reject the morally bankrupt argument that illegal aliens should be legalized because they are already here. By such logic, a burglar who breaks into your house, because he is already inside your house, should therefore be treated as a house guest!
The president's proposal would give illegal aliens temporary legal status for six years and after that, we are told, they must leave. It raises a simple question: Since they came here without permission in the first place, what makes anyone think they'll leave when their new status expires?
I can personally attest to the inherent unfairness to legal immigrants when illegal aliens are amnestied. Back in 1986, Congress passed a massive amnesty for illegal aliens, giving them green cards. Back then I was here on a temporary visa and desperately wanted a green card, since, unlike a temporary visa, a green card allowed you to live here permanently and work for any employer without having to get a work permit beforehand. That amnesty was designed to benefit those from the Third World (mostly from Mexico and Central America). And I was a poor Third World immigrant too, but, because I had come here legally, I was not eligible and had to wait for a green card at the back of the line. In other words, I got punished for taking the trouble to come here legally.
Three million illegal aliens were amnestied by that 1986 law. The proponents of that amnesty promised there would be no more leniency and that immigration laws would be strictly enforced. Almost 20 years later, here we are today with more than 10 million illegal aliens. And we are still waiting for strict enforcement.
Despite the president's rhetoric, his administration has done almost nothing to discourage illegal immigration. For instance, in 2004, there were only 159 arrests at workplaces. With 10 million illegal aliens here and thousands of employers brazenly hiring them, are we to believe the feds could only make 159 arrests? If the president and Congress are truly concerned about the illegal immigration crisis, then they cannot avoid the issue of interior enforcement. It should be made clear to illegal aliens that, merely because they jumped across the border and got in, they are not scot-free. The only way to do that is by no-nonsense interior enforcement, whether it is at a traffic stop or at a worksite.
With strict interior enforcement, and with the relentless prosecution of employers who brazenly hire them, illegal aliens would eventually find themselves in trouble at every turn. Before long, enough of them would get caught and the rest of them would decide to return home on their own. Thus will come the ignominious disproof of the defeatist belief that there is no way to send 10 million illegal aliens back.
Once the illegal aliens are gone and are no longer undercutting wages, employers will find Americans and legal immigrants who are willing to do dirty jobs, for those jobs will then pay a reasonable wage. (Having pulled myself up by my own bootstraps, I can tell you there is no job that legal immigrants will not do for a reasonable wage.) After all, before the illegal aliens came and undercut wages, it was legal immigrants and Americans who did all the dirty jobs.

I could stay here and bump this to the top all day. TRUTH, TRUTH, TRUTH

The amnesty of '86 was illegal...it's unconsitutional and therefore 'nonlaw'. The congress and/or the president do not have the
authority to amnesty foreigners.

Of course the constitution is just a piece of paper. Or so they tell us now...the constitution should be a 'living, changing' document. I think it has served us well for lo these many years and should be upheld by our congress our president and the supreme court. Upheld just the way it was written...just how those phrases were intended to apply. If that isn't done then none of us have any protections.

What ever happened to that constitutional convention that has been asked for again and again and again???

RR